Barry Baker

Loves journalism, is not a journalist. Loves politics, is not a politician. Loves the media, is not a medium. Barry is committed to helping the world become a more interesting place with Power of Opinion.

The report sites a number of contributing factors, including, "safety deficiencies in the Canadian railway transportation system", CN's operation of long trains in the Squamish Subdivision "without adequate consideration of the value of retaining and using local knowledge and experience in the operation of long distributed power trains", and "lack of training and proper supervision" of railway personnel.

Long trains are marshalled (assembled) using a variety of strategies to ensure that tension, weight, and other characteristics are appropriately distributed and maintained along the length of the train. This long train was a Distributed Power (DP) train, meaning the power component consisted of lead locomotives at the head, and remote-control locomotives in the middle of the train. Effective marshalling and power distribution can mitigate the risk associated with longer trains and challenging terrain.

The lead locomotive (the locomotive from which the crew operates) did not have on-board instrumentation to provide crew members detailed information about the status of the remote locomotives. The second locomotive did have appropriate technology on-board, but of course that doesn't help when the crew is in a different locomotive. The previous crew, which operated the train out of North Vancouver, received Distributed Power trouble alarms, but for some reason did not advise the Squamish crew of those alarms. If the previous crew had access to more detailed information about the status of the remote engines (which the second engine could have provided) they may have responded differently, but even without that additional information they should have been alerted to a potential problem with the remote engines. In any event, the Squamish crew that was operating the train at the time of the incident was unaware of the alarms.

Nevertheless, the train's behaviour led the Squamish locomotive engineer to test, then conclude, that the mid-train remote engines were effectively non-functional. From that point the train should have been operated under the more restrictive requirements for conventional trains. As the report states, "A 6700-foot DP train would have no difficulty ascending the grade between Cheakamus and Mons. A conventional train was restricted by bulletin and could not achieve such a train length and still comply with the instructions" (emphasis my own).

When the terrain is flat and the track is straight, having lead locomotives do all the work isn't necessarily a problem. However on this stretch of rail - with sharp corners and differences in elevation - a combination of "pull" from the front and "push" from the middle are necessary to help cars follow the track around corners, rather than through them. With only the lead locomotives pulling from the front, northbound Canadian National freight train A47151-05 stringlined the curve at the accident site (at right), meaning that some of the cars climbed the rail on the inside of the curve because the train was being pulled straight like a string.

Background

After it acquired the former BC Rail system (including the line on which the accident occurred) in 2004, CN moved to improve efficiency by running fewer, but longer trains. Longer trains with remote locomotives are operationally more complex, so CN devised a work process that involved contacting one or more of four road foremen should problems with remote locomotives be encountered while a train was en route. The Transportation Safety Board report describes as these road foremen as,"long service, experienced supervisors responsible for providing training and technical advice on train handling and engine service problems to locomotive engineers". However, the report goes on to describe that, "all four people in the road foreman positions left BCR shortly after the CN acquisition". There is now a single road foreman position in place. The report does not indicate whether the crew operating the train at the time of the accident notified either CN operators or the road foreman once they realized that the remote engines were not loading.

Bad Judgement Loves Company Too

It's obvious that relevant expertise was lost after CN took over BCR, and if that expertise had been brought into the developing situation the derailment and the devastating environmental damage it caused could have been averted. So that covers 1). training and, 2). retaining and using local knowledge. But what about the deficiencies inherent in the "Canadian railway transportation system" identified by the report?

The report states, "it is not the function of the (Transportation Safety) Board to assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability". However, in respect to "safety deficiencies in the Canadian railway transportation system", one might conclude that the risks associated with running long distributed power trains through challenging terrain in the Squamish Subdivision were not adequately assessed.

The Railway Safety Act states, "When a risk assessment is carried out by a company before a major operational change, there is no requirement for the company to provide the risk assessment to Transport Canada (TC)". However, section 1.8 of the report indicates:

No formal risk assessment was performed before CN's decision to operate DP trains, although TC agreed that operating one train per day made the overall system safer as it would minimize the possibility of conflict with the passenger service between Lillooet and Darcy.

Since BCR had operated DP trains in the past according to train handling instructions approved by the former provincial regulator, the British Columbia Safety Authority, CN decided that no formal risk assessment was required when it resumed running DP trains over the territory.

While BCR had operated DP trains in the past, it had discontinued the practice prior to the acquisition by CN. A lay reading of the report suggests that considering CN's failure to retain experts familiar with the challenges of running long, complex trains through the Squamish subdivision, either CN or Transport Canada should have recognized the need for a risk assessment.

A risk assessment might have identified training deficiencies that result in poor situational assessments, and the need to make crews aware of an escalation pathway they should use to seek guidance from an expert when dangerous conditions - such as the failure of remote locomotives - occur. One might guess that an experienced road foreman would have advised this train to simply stop where it was, rather than continuing on its way with only lead engines engaged.

To share your thoughts with Right Up Your Alley: Kamloops readers, click on "Comments" (below).

The Canadian Press story, which appears to have been written by a summer intern who erroneously rehashed content from a similar story in April, at which time the Prime Minister originally announced his intention to appoint Brown upon Liberal Senator Dan Hays anticipated June retirement. The story today garnered all of six column inches on page seven of the daily.

So in the absence of information from local media sources, let's review some brief background about Mr. Brown's appointment.

Mr. Brown will be the second elected senator in Canadian history. It's been 17 years since Brian Mulroney appointed Stan Waters to the Senate in 1990. Unfortunately he served only a year before his death of brain cancer in 1991.

Harper's move is an indication that 1). he is serious about senate reform, and 2). he is serious about beating his competition like a rented mule with the issue before the next writ is dropped. Whether or not the Canadian people care about the Senate as much as Harper believes is another matter, but nevertheless it is a long-standing hobby-horse of western alienation which seems to finally be receiving some action instead of hot air. Oddly, Stephane Dione wandered into the discussion as though he had never read a briefing note.

First Dion insulted the Albertans that elected Brown by saying he was, "not sure the prime minister chose the best person." Second, he questioned how democratic Brown's election had been. This is the same Bert Brown who was elected with 312,041 votes. How many is 312,041? That's more than seven times as many votes as were polled by all candidates from all parties in Dion's riding in 2006. Or, as Lorne Gunter wrote today, 312,041 is almost 100,000 more votes than all federal Liberal candidates in Alberta put together polled in that same election.

One would think that the Daily News could muster more than a shallow grave for this story, which has significant implications throughout Canada, but in particular here in the West.

To share your thoughts with Right Up Your Alley: Kamloops readers, click on "Comments" (below).

July 11, 2007

Sechelt First Nation members unhappy with Chief Stan Dixon's handling of an RCMP pepper-spraying incident, barricaded band offices yesterday, and are refusing entry to employees of the 1,100-member band.

The group is upset that Mr. Dixon accepted an RCMP apology over the incident, apparently without than consulting with elders and victims. The protesters have placed signs expressing their displeasure around the office, and claim they will remain until the Chief resigns.

Mr. Dixon has led the Sechelt Nation for 3 terms, the first of which began in 1983. He was a prominent and active figure in the bands efforts to achieve self-government, which culminated in 1986 with the Sechelt Indian Band Self Government Act. He publishes the Kahtou newspaper, which bills itself as The Voice of BC's First Nations. Unfortunately for Mr. Dixon, the finesse he demonstrated with the RCMP around the pepper-spray incident hasn't satisfied many of his own constituents, for which he is now paying the price. Several band members have suggested that the situation required more "backbone" and "warrior blood".

It now appears that political opportunism may be escalating the rhetoric as councilor/land claims coordinator Robert Joe organized a petition calling for the Chief's resignation. Over 200 band members have signed the petition.

Mr. Joe and Mr. Dixon have squared off twice in previous band elections; Mr. Joe came out on the losing end both times. Nevertheless, one gets the sense that Mr. Joe would make a formidable poker foe, as he managed to keep a level demeanour while telling CBC Radio, "I'm just living on my own ethics and my own honesty and integrity. I'm not out there seeking any kinds of support as if this was an election". In a previous interview Mr. Joe likened the current Chief to both Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Joe seems to have some affinity for the spotlight; a couple of weeks back he was one of about 20 band members who blocked a road to protest watershed development. However, as he explained to The Coast Reporter at the time, "We’re being proactive today. If we do this too often, they’ll start calling us terrorists."

Actually Mr Joe, you're doing such a great job I think we'll leave the hyperbole to you.

To share your thoughts with Right Up Your Alley: Kamloops readers, click on "Comments" (below).

The program was developed to in response to the 2003 wildfires. It is complemented by the federal government's Community Wildfire Protection Element, which covers land "outside municipal lands or on provincial crown lands within communities".

While there are numerous other neighbourhoods that obviously need greater attention (Rose Hill, etc.), this small fire demonstrated that the program works, and no doubt generated in a greater sense of urgency on the part of all stakeholders, including homeowners. Few initiatives progress without squeaky wheels, so now it's time for homeowners to push the case for interface fuel management in their neighbourhoods.

To share your thoughts with Right Up Your Alley:Kamloops readers, click on "Comments" (below).

July 05, 2007

Microsoft today announced that it will be returning to Vancouver in a big way when when it opens a new software development center in the area this fall. The company has had a sales and business development presence in the city for years, however it hasn't operated major development operations there since the mid-90's.

In 1991 Microsoft purchased Vancouver-based Consumer Software, which developed a desktop-based email product that would become Microsoft Mail, and eventually Microsoft Exchange. In 1994 Microsoft consolidated email/messaging development in Redmond, and closed up major software development operations in Vancouver. I later worked at HealthVISION Corporation (now Eclipsys Corporation) with several of those who chose not to follow their jobs south.

It is speculated the move results from immigration restrictions that have hindered Microsoft and other technology companies from importing the intellectual manpower required to support their operations. A major operation in Vancouver effectively bypasses the immigration barrier, while capitalizing upon the proximity, time zone, and cultural similarities between Vancouver and Seattle.

Microsoft's return to Vancouver will have a big impact not only in the lower mainland, but right here in Kamloops as well. Microsoft is big, and depending upon the scale of the new operation it could very well suck a lot of oxygen (read manpower) out of the room, oxygen that small software vendors in BC depend upon. While we should expect to see a big brain gain over time, in the short term increased competition for local software engineers will likely make it more difficult for BC companies to hire and retain the technologists they depend upon. Thompson Rivers University will at some point expand programs like CSOM and BT/ACS to help satisfy demand.

In the long term, this move will energize BC's software industry. Having worked closely with Microsoft in the past - as both a software partner and as a member of its Partner Advisory Council for ISV's (Independent Software Vendors) - I've seen firsthand what a rich ecosystem of entrepreneurial activity Microsoft begets all around it. Niche product markets that are too small for Microsoft to notice are often big enough to support thriving communities of software companies that develop complementary products.

The fact Microsoft is coming to town is good news for BC generally, and for the technology sector specifically. However, as with any change, there will no doubt be some pain along the way.

To share your thoughts with Right Up Your Alley: Kamloops readers, click on "Comments" (below).

The Sechelt Indian Band took a big step today towards diffusing the mess created by an inexperienced RCMP officer when he pepper-sprayed a crowd celebrating a youth soccer tournament championship earlier this week. Band Chief Stan Dixon accepted the RCMP's apology over the incident, but the force obviously needs to consider what it can do to better prepare its officers to maintain rather than disrupt the peace.

As you may recall, Constable Glen Martin sprayed the crowd after trying to arrest soccer coach Troy Mayers, who was driving a truck carrying a number of youths in the box. The vehicle was one of several participating in a traditional celebration of soccer in the community. The RCMP officer intervened because of a minor driving infraction, but the situation escalated when the pressing crowd apparently caused him to fear for his safety.

In previous years, RCMP officers have actually stopped traffic in the community so the celebration could pass unimpeded, but apparently that message wasn't conveyed to Constable Martin. While many initial reactions have focused on his handling of the situation, the responsibility more properly resides with his superiors, who apparently didn't think to bring him up to speed on the 20-year history of the celebration.

The relationship between the Sechelt band and local RCMP has been referred to as "edgy but respectful", a description which could easily apply in other BC communities. In Kamloops, we are lucky to have a progressive band that has developed a productive relationship with community stakeholders, including the T’Kumlups Rural RCMP Detachment. But as this incident in Sechelt demonstrates, good will developed can evaporate very quickly when a single individual in a position of authority makes a poor choice. Let's hope that the brass at local RCMP detachments elsewhere in BC take note and arm their members with the training and information necessary to succeed.

To share your thoughts with Right Up Your Alley: Kamloops readers, click on "Comments" (below).

June 30, 2007

It wasn’t difficult to predict how the Kamloops and District Labour Council would react to Councilor Joe Leong’s suggestion (at Tuesday’s City Council meeting) that the group should back up its demand for a referendum on the Riverside Park/waterfront hotel issue by putting its money where its mouth is.

While his motion didn’t garner enough support to result in a letter to the Labour Council, it’s obvious it was a tongue-in-cheek initiative from the outset.

Leong’s motion drew the Labour Council out of the peanut gallery long enough for it demonstrate how completely out of its depth it was on the issue. Rather than seizing the opportunity to engage Leong, Labour Council President Karen Cerniuk instead folded her tent and complained that Leong didn't understand her organization’s affairs. That flat-footed response, of course, is exactly what Leong was looking for; Ms. Cerniuk confirmed that the labour group really doesn't have a role to play in determining if, where, or by whom a hotel will be built.

However this issue plays out, maybe other advice-rich but solution-poor groups will get the message that if they want to tell city council what to do, they should be prepared to play a roll in how it gets done. And kudos to Councilor Leong for having the political chops to drop both a gauntlet and a road map back to the peanut gallery.

Welcome back Ms. Cerniuk, I kept your seat warm.

To share your thoughts with Right Up Your Alley:Kamloops readers, click on "Comments" (below).

June 26, 2007

If you caught today's issue of the Kamloops Daily News, I hope you had the opportunity to read David Charbonneau's column Eye View. Although his views are typically well left of center, he makes compelling arguments that one shouldn't dismiss regardless of their political bent.

This morning under the headline "A stable base to the economy is created with fair contracts", Mr. Charbonneau examined the treatment of collective labour agreements by the Liberal government, which unilaterally imposed new contracts after being elected in 2001. Recently the Supreme Court of Canada created new law when it reversed years of existing jurisprudence and enshrined the right to collective bargaining. Mr. Charbonneau's column painted a predictable caricature of the Liberal's policy changes of the day as simplistic, mean-spirited, and harmful to both individuals and the economy.

One could certainly make the argument that all of those characterizations apply. But how does that argument resonate when the shoe is on the other foot?

You might well recall the sad state of small business affairs in BC throughout the 90's when the NDP was in power. I recall speaking at the time with a previously successful builder in the line-up at Overwaitea, who related how he had closed up shop and had retired to the Shuswap, where he would wait until the government changed before getting back into the game. Why? He said it was just too difficult to slog through the run-away red tape the government of the day had implemented. He had previously managed to earn a living for himself and his workers for at least twenty years, but was now up against a business environment that forced him to close up shop.

Now to be fair, there were certainly other issues that affected builders at that time, including an economy in the late 90's suffering from aftermath of the Asian flu. However the situation was certainly not improved by the NDP government; in fact it was exacerbated. BC brought up the rear in Canada in terms of economic, investment, and employment growth, while achieving first place in respect to increases in business bankruptcies. Much like the workers affected by the Liberal's policies in 2001, the small business owners of the 90's were set upon by the government of the day.

The impact on the ground was very similar then as now; small business owners had families to support, as did their workers, and so on down the line of businesses and workers that had depended upon the economic activity that relocated to other provinces or ceased altogether. The impact at the personal level was devastating, but the overall cascading impact upon small business practically stopped the province in its tracks.

So where is the protection for small business from governments that discard fair and predictable business conditions as we saw under the previous government? And more to Mr. Charbonneau's point, where is the protection of the "stable base to the economy" in a province where labour and regulatory regimes flip-flop between political poles?

Well first, let's agree on where BC's economy is based. Counter to Mr. Charbonneau's premise, it's not the public sector, it's the private sector. To be more specific, it's small business.

According to Western Economic Diversification Canada's Small Business Profile 2006, 48% of the entire provincial workforce (well over a million people) is employed by small business, as opposed to the public sector which employs just 17% of the workforce. 20% of the BC workforce is self-employed, and over a third of those self-employed workers are women. More than a quarter of BC's GDP is produced by small businesses.

The economic base of the provincial economy is small business. Government policies that harm small business create at least as much personal hardship and economic devastation as the policies against which Mr. Charbonneau rails.

While it is difficult to predict the full impact of the court's ruling, it's plain to see that it has created certainty for workers affected by collective bargaining; legislators can't tear up collective agreements moving forward. Small businesses don't negotiate collective agreements with the government, so small businesses and the workers they employ have little legal recourse to unfair or harmful legislation.

There is no collective contract between small business and government, so small business will never qualify for court-imposed certainty. Despite Mr. Charbonneau's claims, fair contracts do not create a stable base to the economy. Rather, a stable base to the economy is created only insofar as legislators allow small businesses the opportunity to grow and innovate within a predictable regulatory regime.

To share your thoughts with Right Up Your Alley: Kamloops readers, click on "Comments" (below).